By Jim Nichols

The first of this year’s version of the Presidential Debates is now over. Many of us wrestled with whether we wanted to watch. Did we not know what each candidate would say? Should we even bother to spend our time on this?

What we got was two candidates of whom neither seemed to be a preferable choice. Candidate A was a lying, boasting blabbermouth and Candidate B had a mind that seemed to wander as he mumbled.

The topics were predictable. Candidate A, how would you address the economic situation in the country? Candidate B? 

Candidate A, what is the best solution to immigration? Candidate B?

As the topics unfolded, we knew what they would be. January 6^th? Reproductive rights? Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East? Did you hear any surprise topics probed by the moderators? I did not.

I believe we need to ask these people a different type of question.

One of the tasks of my academic career was to write recommendation letters for students applying for positions after college. In my discipline those positions tended to be in the sciences such as medical, dental, or physical therapy school, graduate school in a scientific field, or employment in a spot that required a science background. Not only did I write an uncountable number of letters, but I sat in a large number of face-to-face interviews with students.

Being a science major of some type is a difficult college major. Students graduating almost always are bright, articulate, and skilled at problem-solving. They have mastered the art of learning substantial amounts of technical information. As a recommender of these students, I needed to help distinguish between them; it was my responsibility to the schools or programs to which each was applying. 

The complication was, however, that each of these candidates presented a strong academic case. Their grades were high as were their scores on admission tests. What could I and my recommending colleagues add to their applications that would make them stand out?

The best answer we could approach was to address and document the kind of person each applicant was. That is, what is there about this applicant that shows integrity, imagination, persistence, patience, kindness, and a caring spirit? What evidence is there that this candidate brings to any group a cooperative, honest, and creative nature?

As I watched the Presidential Debate, I wished the moderators would have dealt more with these topics than the ones chosen. If I had been the moderator, I would have tried for responses to questions and topics such as follows in no order. Both candidates are required to answer each question. These are not “gotcha” questions, just questions to reveal who this person really is.

1. What is the role of self-sacrifice in your life? Can you give us an example?
2. What is your moral compass base? That is, what do you think of first when you need to make a decision? 
3. Define truth for us.
4. Define cheating for us.
5. America is clearly a country with religious pluralism. Does that make you happy or do you wish things could be different?
6. There is little doubt that we live in a highly sexualized environment. It is expressed in several ways. What is your take on sexual fidelity?
7. No one would consider either of you as young. As you view a limited number of years ahead of you, what are some personal goals for those years?
8. You have each reared children. What have been your guiding principles as a parent?
9. My grandchildren are watching this debate. What would you say to them about how to be a kind, moral, and truthful American?

Frankly, these are the type of questions that should be included in considering candidates for any office—national, state, or local.

Apparently, these are the two Presidential candidates with which we are stuck. These are questions that were not asked but should have been. We might not like or be satisfied by the responses. As World War II was looming and there was skepticism about whether it was coming, Winston Churchill warned, “There is a great danger in refusing to believe things you do not like.” Rather than hear the candidates try to spout the well-rehearsed responses coached by their handlers, how about we get responses that reveal what kind of person each is? That is what counts.

Jim Nichols is a retired Abilene Christian University biology professor and current hospital chaplain